Wednesday April 6, 2005
WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG
Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light, Solving the Mystery of the Failed
In 1887, two scientists Michelson and Morley did an experiment to measure the
velocity of light and
confirm the basic laws of nature.
They sent light beams along the direction of the earth's travel as it went
around the sun. The earth moves about 67,000 miles per hour around the sun,
which is a small but measurable percentage of the velocity of light.
Albert A. Michelson in 1887 at the time of the famous M-M experiment
Their experiment was to show that a beam of light sent in the direction of the
earth's travel should be the speed of light PLUS the speed of the earth. While
a beam sent backwards should be the speed of light MINUS the speed of the
earth. No matter how many times they and many other scientists repeated that
same experiment, it always failed. The measured speed of light was always the
same in any direction.
For 20 years modern science was in a quandary. Were Newton's easily provable
laws of physics wrong?
Edward W. Morley in 1887 at the time of the famous M-M experiment
In 1905 Albert Einstein thought he had found a solution -- but he was wrong.
Earlier in 1873, the noted Scotsman mathema- tician/scientist James Maxwell
wrote his famous four
equations. His equations have become a gold-standard in science
and are still accepted without changes or doubt. While integrating his
differential equations, Maxwell had to add the mathematically required
integration constant. In math, the integration constant is usually called "C."
James Clerk Maxwell as a young physicist
Maxwell's equations relate the static electric attractive force of an electron
to the same magnetic
attractive force of a moving electron traveling in a circle or a coil of wire.
To make the equations
match the experimental measurements, the integration constant C had to have the
units of 186,000 miles
Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of light."
Today, science still calls the velocity of light C.
But not so. It was only an integration constant to make Maxwell's equations
match the measurements.
What the 19th century scientists, including Einstein, did not know nor have
any experience with, was some- thing which we now know as "time zones." Time
zones relate time to distance. Even today most of Europe is in the same time
zone. None of the 19th century European scientist had ever experienced the
need to change their watches as they traveled from country to country.
Even today most of Europe is in the same time zone
Today as we travel around the earth in fast jet planes we need to adjust our
clocks and watches to the new time zone at
the rate of 1 hour for each 1,000 miles of travel. This "virtual velocity" is
not real, but simply the
commonly accepted rate in "miles per hour" for calculating by how much we need
to adjust our wrist watch as
This "virtual velocity" could be called the "C" of time zones. This "virtual
velocity" or time
conversion constant could be any arbitrary number, as long as we all accept the
What is the "C" of time zones on Mars or the moon? It's not the same as on
Michelson-Morely's first precisely accurate 1887 experimental set up on a
rotating optical table made from a slab of granite
A proper analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that there are
actually four possible
explanations for the null or failed result. Most scientists, including
Einstein, who had no experience
with time zones, only saw three pos- sibilities. Many scientists in 1905 could
not and some still do not
fully accept Einstein's choice among the three possibilities - since his theory
clearly violates our
sense of reality, and Newton's laws of physics.
Einstein's Relativity Theory also produces a series of well-known paradoxes.
In mathematics and logic,
whenever a syllogism, system of logic or theory produces a paradoxical result,
it is almost always the result of
an incorrect premise.
That fourth possibility for explaining the mysterious result of the M-M
experiment falls directly from
the result of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment itself. That new fourth
possibility is that the
"virtual velocity" of light is infinity, while the "actual velocity" seeming to
come from Maxwell's
equations is 186,000 miles per second.
This is the same as when we travel in jet planes. We can measure
our "actual velocity" or local velocity on the jet plane as 350 miles per
But we must add or subtract the "virtual velocity" of one hour for each 1,000
miles of travel, or the change in time zones, to make the answer match reality
when we arrive at the destination. That's not hard or difficult to do. And we
often do the calculation in our head. Add three hours to your watch as you
travel the 3,000 miles from Los Angeles to New York.
This possibility of the "virtual velocity" of light
solves the dilemma of the repeatedly failed Michelson-Morley experiment. If
the "virtual velocity" of light is infinite, the "actual velocity" or
apparent velocity 186,000 m/s will always appear to be the same regardless of the motion of
the light source.
Infinity PLUS the velocity of the earth is always the same as Infinity MINUS
the velocity of the earth.
Infinity plus or minus any number is always infinity. Thus the
Michelson-Morley experiment was not a
failure. It proves that Dr. Einstein was wrong.
Dr. Albert Einstein, Professor at Princeton
I should add that I have a degree in physics from the University of Santa
Clara. For years, I
confounded my professors by working out complex problems in relativistic
mechanics in my head. They
said I was mostly exactly correct but at extremely high velocities near
99.99999 percent of the velocity
of light, my answers were just a tad bit too big, compared to Einstein's
equations. I said, that's
because Einstein was wrong. I still got the physics degree anyway.
I should also add that recent experiments and measurements over long time
periods or distances, such as the two Pioneer spacecraft which recently left
beyond the edges of our solar system, seem to show that Einstein's equations
give answers which are just a tad bit too small.
Wednesday July 19, 2005
WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG (Part 2)
Was Special Relativity a Hoax Accidentally Perpetrated on Science?
One hundred years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity.
It has become the basis for much of modern physics. In 1959 I read
his paper and found that it contained a simple arithmetic error,
therefore the theory must be false.
Dr. Abert Einstein
Years later as a college physics student I told my professors about my
discovery of the math error. They didn't believe me, even when I showed
them a much simpler way to solve advanced physics problems. My
solution was so simple that I could solve most of the problems in my
head. Today as a senior physicist, I ask, "Why is it that modern
science for 100 years has believed a theory which is based on a simple
The answer is simple. It was a mistake in the normal "peer review"
process used by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's
Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed
peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's
first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.
That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel
Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had
reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness.
Annalen der Physik
But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several
other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of
Relativity" which contained the math error. Why did no one catch the
It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm
Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity
paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper,
along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any
The Young Max Planck
Chief Editor Annalen der Physik
Both of the young editors, Planck and Wien,
later won Nobel Prizes themselves.
They had made the editorial decision for "Annalen der Physik" that
since Einstein had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and
popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer reviewed.
Co-Editor Annalen der Physik
It could be that Planck and Wien felt that publishing anything written
by Einstein would enhance the popularity and circulation of the journal.
But using the usual peer review process would slow down publication of
the exciting new Einstein papers until the next year. Or it could be
that Planck and Wien were so overawed by the genius of Einstein that
they felt Einstein had no "peers." For whatever reason, the journal
editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist Einstein, simply "broke
the required rules" for publishing new theories in the "peer reviewed"
It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists
around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had
broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that
since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that
Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already
been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite
scientists. But not so.
Thus in the early 1900's no scientist would dare to point out the
obvious math error in the Relativity paper. To have done so, the
scientists thought, would be the same as calling the esteemed reviewers,
the greatest minds of physics, a bunch of dribbling idiots and drooling
dolts. Not a good thing to do if you want a future career in physics.
of the surreptitious and momentary Annalen der Physik change in
editorial policy, no respectable scientist would dare to proclaim,
"Look, the King has no clothes." It seemed to everyone that the whole
scientific community was all ooohing and aaahing over the "King's
invisible royal raiment" and how well it all seemed to match his new
In their competitive scramble to get along and go along within the
physics community, the scientists simply could not see the truth of what
was in front of them. It would take the innocence of a child to
state the obvious. I was 14 at the time when I found the obvious math
mistake in Einstein's paper.
I was then too young and naive to know that winning a Nobel Prize would
automatically and magically correct math errors in physics papers. So I
told what I had discovered to my teachers and professors. This had
several unintended consequences.
As a student at Del Mar High School, I told my chemistry and physics
teachers what I had found. Within days, I became widely known around
campus as "The kid who proved Einstein wrong." I was unanimously
elected president of the Special Science Group for advanced students.
I was the "wunderkind" at school and district board meetings, who made
outrageous financial requests, backed by grants I had gotten from local
Silicon Valley corporations, for advanced school science projects.
Projects such as wiring up the school for TV, the year before cable TV
was invented. I later met the man who invented cable TV, so I know.
I also clearly noticed that the usual number of requests from the really
cute girls who had wanted to wear my athletic sweater had
precipitously dropped to a nerdy zero. That athletic sweater, with the
varsity block letters for track, cross-country, wrestling and football,
with all the medals and ribbons cascading down the left arm. For an
"active" teenager, this simply wouldn't do. I began a curious
I might whisper after school to my teachers about new science projects I
was working on, but then not a word to my fellow students. "Sorry,
Donna, what? Einstein? Never heard of him. Wanna see my first place
California gold medal for 400-yard relay?" What two-faced cads teenage
boys can be.
The curious double-life continued for decades. I found it difficult to
find jobs in business and industry, even with multiple degrees in
physics and engineering, with the appellation "The kid who proved
Einstein wrong." I never mentioned it during job interviews.
Otherwise, I often did not get the job because I was "way too
Jobs in academe were impossible. In the university environment, not
being a professed "believer" in Relativity Theory, was considered the
near equivalent to being a heretic, blasphemer, or bomb-throwing
By the 1960's, the Relativity Theory had already been widely "accepted"
for so long and republished in so many advanced college textbooks, that
most professors simply could not see the obvious math error which I had
They couldn't see it, because it "must not" exist. Too many famous scientists, who were much smarter than they were,
such as Bertrand Russell and George Gamow, had already proclaimed the
theory to be true, therefore the simple math error can't exist. For
them, the error was invisible, even when it was pointed out to them.
And what was that Simple Math Error? It's so simple even a child could
figure it out. It was a matter of re-interpreting the meaning of the
negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein had interpreted the negative results as meaning that C is the
constant velocity of light which nothing can exceed. That "fact"
actually has never been proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis"
stated by Einstein. He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec.
I have long disagreed with that method, since to make that work,
Einstein had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform. This is
both mathematically and logically incorrect.
The Transform seems to give the numerical or arithmetic "right
answer," but mathematically it is false. The Lorentz Transform uses
the square root of the velocity squared divided by C squared.
The Lorentz Transform
Mathematically all square roots have two answers, the positive and the
negative root. Einstein, in his paper, seemingly without telling
anybody, had arbitrarily tossed out the negative root as not having any
physical meaning. But that is a mathematical and scientific "no-no" and
means that the original premise of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory
must be incorrect. Under the Lorentz Transform an object will travel
at V = 1,000 mph East, and also -V = 1,000 mph West, at the same time.
That clearly is paradoxical.
is equivalent to Einstein stating in his theory that the square root of
four is equal to two. For most people, those numbers seem absolutely
correct. But actually that is false, since the square root of four is
equal to both plus two AND minus two.
the mathematically challenged, that is equivalent to Einstein claiming
that two plus two is equal to five (2 + 2 = 5). And that same
mind-boggling math error is published in every modern advanced physics
textbook on Relativity Theory. But since, supposedly it was published
in a respected "peer reviewed" physics journal, who would dare to argue
usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is
a paradoxical result. For example: (1) All dogs have four legs, (2)
All four legged animals are cats. Therefore: All dogs are cats, AND/OR
All cats are dogs! Which premise is false? With the Special Theory of
Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along
with several others which were discovered later.
no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special
Relativity Theory as false, eventhough it produced a paradoxical result
- indicating a false logical premise. The simple fact that Einstein
himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning
or at least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be
Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason. It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz,
who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory. Dr. Lorentz had
developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an
attempt to explain the negative M-M experiment. He taught it to his
students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple
"curiosity" which produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer. But
it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer.
Dr. Hendrik Lorentz
Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason I
just mentioned. He already knew that his young student, Albert
Einstein, using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly
"lifted" out of his college classnotes, had produced a false "Theory of
Relativity." Dr. Lorentz never accepted nor called it the "Theory of
the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision,
only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because
it produced the obvious paradox. Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer
review" his student's paper. That Relativity paper would never have
made it through a real and proper "peer review" process.
There actually is another simpler way to explain and solve the mysterious negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
It uses the simple physical constant called "alpha," the Fine
Structure Constant. It was the genius Einstein himself, who introduced
the Fine Structure Constant in his first Nobel Prize winning paper about
the Quantum nature of the photoelectric effect.
The definition of "Alpha"
Fine Structure Constant
Einstein had only used his own "alpha" as the basis for solving the M-M
Experiment, instead of the Lorentz Transform in his Relativity paper,
he would have found that all the forces of nature; the nuclear,
electric, magnetic, and gravitational forces, were all simply variations
of the same force.
is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems
to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears
to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior
seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or
has a "virtual velocity" of infinity. The physical constant alpha
turns out to be equal to 1/137.
is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally
red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole. This changes all observed
measurements of time and distance. The amount of time dilation or
gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared
to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally
measured constant called "alpha."
The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning
distance to time, of the electron is "c." The relationship of
mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant
"h." The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is
found in the "alpha" definition. Attempting to produce a complete
system of universal science based only on the triumverate of "measured
constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.
It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all
the properties of time and space.
All the tools needed to solve the mystery of the M-M Experiment
problem are found in the definition of "alpha." No paradoxical square
root of squares Lorentz Transform is needed. But 100 years ago, before
the common use and experience of "time zones" to measure the passage of
time in different locations around the world, nobody could see it.
the natural forces of the universe, using Einstein's "alpha" could be
described with a single equation. It was the "Unified Field Theory"
which Einstein and many other esteemed theoretical physicists had long
sought, but somehow had eluded them. Instead, for 100 years, a simple
editorial mistake in a "peer reviewed" physics journal has led science
Monday August 22, 2005
THE SHOCKING GREAT WAR:
CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION
Who Has the Correct Answer?
It's Time to End the Insane Debate
ADDENDUM TO ALL THREE TRIPTYCH PARTS OF THE KINECHRON INVESTIGATION
1. DID JOSHUA MAKE THE SUN STAND STILL -- Chapter 4
2. WHERE DOCTOR EINSTEIN WENT WRONG -- Chapter 3
3. WHAT REALLY KILLED THE DINOSAURS -- Chapter 6
RESOLVING THE GREAT DEBATE
Recently the Science Vs. Religion debate has heated up over the battle
of which "theory" is correct -Creation or Evolution. The debate has
recently ranged from the depths of the White House, to numerous School
Boards, lawsuits and even many college campuses. And which theory is
correct? It turns out that neither side can "prove" they are correct -
for the simple reason that both sides are wrong.
1.) CREATION: The biblical text does not
say that the earth is only about 4,004 years old. That was Bishop Usher
who made that mistake and he was wrong -- not the bible. The bible, in
fact, says nothing about age of the earth. Bishop Usher made a mistake
in assuming that Genesis Chapter 5 was about the ages of the
Instead it contains a hidden critical piece of scientific information,
necessary for maintaining the Hebrew culture - the exact length of the
year, 365 days. Before about 2,000 BC, most middle-eastern advanced
cultures used a 360 day lunar calendar which is good enough for being a
shepherd or camel herder. But to be a true farmer and use agriculture,
you need to know the exact length of the year to be able to know when to
plant your crops the next year. I will explain and prove that in
So Bishop Usher was wrong. People who believe in the "young earth"
are wrong, based on a mistaken translation by a Bishop who was not a
scientist. A Bishop who didn't understand the scientific and
historical meaning of Genesis 5, which documents the "evolution" of
ancient cultures from hunter-gathering-herding societies, into
full-fledged agricultural societies which need a proper 365 day solar
calendar to survive.
2.) EVOLUTION: Charles Darwin was also
very wrong. Evolution by "natural selection" was not the process which
created the myriad lifeforms that now exist on earth. There is plenty
of evidence which can prove that. The one item of critical evidence to
prove that Darwin's Evolution is not correct is that after 150 years of
diligent searching, not one, no, not even one example of a missing link
or any intermediate species form has ever been discovered. But that is
exactly what is needed to show Darwin's evolution theory was correct.
Since no intermediate species have ever been found, therefore Darwin's
gradual evolution theory by "natural selection" is shown to be false.
Thus the arguments for both sides of the heated debate between "creation
vs evolution" are non-starters. They are BOTH wrong. It's like two
blind people arguing over the color of the sky or the sun. Neither side
can prove the other side is correct or incorrect. It is a useless
debate and a waste of time. I won't mention the number of angels on
heads of pins as another example of useless philosophical debates.
Actually, creation and evolution are also BOTH correct, to some degree.
Not in anyway that most people believe -- but just enough to fool both
sides into thinking that they each might actually be correct.
Every 1 to 2 million years, the magnetic field of the earth reverses the
north and south magnetic poles. The earth itself does not reverse -
just the magnetic field. During the reversal process, the earth's
magnetic field, which usually acts as a shield protecting lifeforms
from intense solar X-rays, gamma rays, and deadly dangerous ionizing
particle radiation, suddenly disappears. The deadly intense solar
radiation is momentarily allowed to strike the surface of the earth.
Within hours, about 99 percent of all life on earth is instantly killed
by the intense radiation. Those few 1 percent of survivors, hidden in
caves, in holes in the earth, or under water are highly deformed,
damaged and mutated by the intense radiation causing direct damage to
the DNA molecules in their reproductive cells. But the radiation damage
is not visible in those survivors, but it is clearly seen in their
Within months or a year, or less than one generation, the surviving
mutants which may or may not still be viable, may be able to reproduce.
This results in multitudes of numerous competing similar but highly
modified mutant lifeforms. Then and only then, does Darwin's evolution
process of "natural selection," enter the scene, to cull the less able
or disabled mutant forms to be lost to history, while the strong
survivors with many new adaptable traits become numerous new species.
The new species were suddenly "created" by the intense radiation within
Example: About 1 million years ago, during the last magnetic field
reversal, one species, Saber Tooth tigers, were extremely irradiated and
in less than a year became, modern lions, tigers, pumas, ocelots,
bobcats, pussycats and numerous other feline species. None of the new
species was ever seen before the massive radiation event at the magnetic
field reversal. Darwin's "evolution" didn't and couldn't do all of
that within several years. But that is what the geologic record shows
-- almost instantaneous "creation" of many new species by intense random
radiation with no intermediate "missing link" forms, and all within one
Since the time of the age of dinosaurs, which ended 65 million years
ago, there have been about 15 to 20 magnetic field reversals. At each
reversal, there is almost instantaneous creation of multitudes of new
lifeforms, usually resulting in many forms coming from just one earlier
life form. And usually the earlier life form disappears, since it is no
Another example: The early horse, eohippus, about the size of a dog,
disappeared, but became donkeys, horses and several equine variants such
as zebras which are almost related species. Notice, in this process
there is no gradual evolution -- and thus no "missing links" between
Charles Darwin, when he invented his evolution theory, knew nothing
about this, since "radiation" was not "discovered" until 50 years later
by Madame Currie. And the effect of radiation on DNA was completely
unknown, until DNA was "discovered" by Watson and Crick 100 years after
Darwin. Thus Darwin, in the mid-19th century, had no clue as to what
might be the actual cause to make one species change into another
species. Thus Darwin's Theory is wrong.
No missing links between species have ever been discovered. Now you
know why. The new species were "created" almost in the blink of an
eye, by intense solar radiation. No intermediate species or "missing
link" were ever born. The new mutant species were born directly from
their highly radiated and DNA-modified parents.
Thus, almost instantaneously, in geologic time, the new lifeforms are
"created" by the intense radiation, and then the survivors quickly
"evolved" in just one generation into the many viable new species.
Thus, it is time to end the inane debate between "creation versus
evolution." Both scientific and religious "beliefs" are wrong and
cannot be proved to be true. Both can be proved to be false. And also
both are partly "right" -- but for the wrong reason.
Editor, Brother Jonathan Gazette
-- BROTHER JONATHAN GAZETTE